Michael F. McCartney wrote:I have a faint recollection that Lyon's duties include correcting the rules when he finds them deficient, which if +/- correct, would sanction a bit of innovative "interpretation" of determining what is and isn't "heraldry" over which he exercises jurisdiction within Scotland. But I may be wrong!

He has the duty of correcting arms when he finds them to be incorrect, but that's not the same thing. There's a reasonably well established history of the Court of Session (= Court of Appeals + Supreme Court) smacking successive Lyons upside the head when they make up new powers for themselves, sometimes even when they exercise valid powers unfairly or unreasonably.

JMcMillan wrote:He has the duty of correcting arms when he finds them to be incorrect, but that's not the same thing. There's a reasonably well established history of the Court of Session (= Court of Appeals + Supreme Court) smacking successive Lyons upside the head when they make up new powers for themselves, sometimes even when they exercise valid powers unfairly or unreasonably.

Innes of Learney was so adept at citing and quoting himself that he is now cited as a learned authority by the Court of Session even where he made it up and then cited his own words as the original authority!

Like a circle in a spiralLike a wheel within a wheelNever ending or beginningOn an ever-spinning reel

I think the Lord Lyon is somewhat unique in that he is the only judge in his court. It would be like if there was only one judge for family court. Especially nowadays the Lord Lyon is going to know more about the heraldic law then judges in higher courts. The checks on his overreach are therefore somewhat weak. Especially on the margin.

Public officials are usually to some degree responsible to interpret the limits of their power. History is full of example of officials that did what their predecessors considered beyond their power.

I think in regard to badges. The best argument would be that the Lord Lyon doesn't assume the power of regulating them himself. Rather, if only badges recorded by the Lord Lyon are recognized by the people, society, etc. then the Lord Lyon is given the power by common practice. If the unregistered badges continued to be viewed as valid, then the Lord Lyon will not have gained that power.

The most relevant issue, I think, is the limitation of the Lord Lyon's jurisdiction and the legal definition of a coat of arms. As I understand it, being on a shield is a big factor in determining if a design is a coat of arms. This is especially relevant in relation to Scottish Football clubs, who have had to change their logos. The right to own a logo is universal, the privilege of owning a coat of arms is limited, and only the later falls under the Lord Lyon's jurisdiction.

The next question is there a difference between a badge and a logo, legally speaking. I would suggest yes. First, a badge follows heraldic rules. I can imagine two design that would be considered different enough not to infringe on each other's copyright, but also to have identical blazons. Second is the rules of ownership. Badges are usually owned by people, logos by businesses. Presumably, one can't sell one's copyright to their badge. The inheritance rules are less clear. I do presume though that badges registered with a grant of arms are inherited with them.

I am intrigued and suspect that the question of logo versus arms will be a trifle more complex than anything that has gone before.

Were I, for example, as an entirely undistinguished Weller choose to design an aerial view of an open topped well as badge and describe it as an annulus of brickwork within which water was shown by alternating wavy lines of blue and white, this will, as I understand it, be a logo. In which case the copyright (setting aside that I do not do this work as an employee) would likely vest in me as the artist-creator.

Were I to describe this in appropriate heraldic language and have a round one made up (enamelled silver sounds nice) it would then be a badge.

Were it placed into a shield shape, am I assuming a coat of arms?

(Oh all right the water representation is so common that I am probably infringing on an extant achievement.)

For a design to be a logo, it should properly be registered in the appropriate legal form for the country in which the applicant (usually a corporate entity rather than an individual) resides.

An heraldic badge may look like a logo, smell like a logo and taste like a logo, but it isn't really, except perhaps in Scotland where the Court of the Lord Lyon would provide it with legal protection - but only if the badge had been granted by Lord Lyon's Office.

A logo may, or may not, have the appearance of an heraldic badge, depending on whether the designer understands heraldic practice and abides by heraldic conventions.

A badge utilised as a charge on a shield is not a badge, it is a charge (or charges if like mine it has more than one element).

A (registered) logo placed on a shield is still a logo, though the result is a coat of arms (or something that has the attributes usually associated with a coat of arms). Whether the resulting arms would have the protection available to the logo would depend on the wording of the registration. Whether a logo placed on a shield was properly a coat of arms would depend on whether the arms were granted by an heraldic authority (in places where such authorities exist) or merely assumed.

But the Greek word λόγος, means reason or speech as well as word. And then logo is a shortened form of logotype and has its origins in not one but two Greek words: λόγος and τύπος (typos) which means "imprint". So logotype really means a printed word: "Coca Cola" is, by that criterion, a logotype:

But the Greek word λόγος, means reason or speech as well as word. And then logo is a shortened form of logotype and has its origins in not one but two Greek words: λόγος and τύπος (typos) which means "imprint". So logotype really means a printed word: "Coca Cola" is, by that criterion, a logotype:

but the Red Cross isn't:

unless I suppose it is accompanied by words:

Exactly. The more inclusive term for all of these is simply "mark," familiar in heraldry in the form of housemarks, merchant's marks, shipping marks, etc. The modern term "brand" originates from the practice of burning a "mark" onto barrels, etc. There's plenty of room for cross-fertilization between these genres of emblems and heraldry.

It strikes me that what seems to get many heraldists' hackles up are:

(1) The depiction of coats of arms in what they consider to be a logo-ish style, in monochrome without regard to tinctures, simplifying outlines, omitting any shading or other indication of three-dimensionality, and so on.

(2) The displacement of arms as a mark of corporate identity in favor of contemporary, non-heraldic marks.

I don't see any problem with the former, provided that the arms are still identifiable as the arms. After all, If it's unacceptable to depict arms without tinctures, doesn't that invalidate their use on things like seals, bookplates, and silverware?

I deplore the latter trend, but it's all a matter of taste.

What I really can't stand are institutions that alter their arms to conform to the latest advertising logo. For example, this is what Ohio State University did to its nicely heraldic arms and seal in 2013 after the branding consultant crowd insisted that the "O" should look exactly the same on everything associated with the university's public identity:

Mark is a better word, and I think there are three ways a picture can receive legal protection. As a piece of art (ownership belongs to creator who can sell his rights to it)As a trade mark (represents a business usually, I assume there are personal trademarks, rights can also be sold/expire)As a piece of heraldry (can't be sold only inherited, represents a person or corporation)

I read something about Trump failing to register a trademark in England because he was basically usurping an already registered Coat of Arms. So registering a coat of arms in England also gives one some sort of trademark protection. Presumably, registering a badge with the Lord Lyon gets one similar protection. It might not be cost effective though.